The recession, benefits, the safety net, and the learning curve

lostinrates

dopester wrote: »

Maybe so, but do you see any changes to in within 12 months or more, from a super-debt UK government?
.

Should our disillutionment and frustration result in our resignation?

I think it highly improbable Max would get more. Should any of the various viscious outcomes forecast by some come to fruition, I would imagine cuts are probable, that is of course change.

mardatha

I've never bought a house, but I don't see why tenants & owners should be treated differently. We're all in the same circumstances and we all need a roof over our heads. So if home owners are treated differently then that's unfair.
And Max - or anybody else LOl - when you do mystery shopper stuff they pay by BACS and it shows in your bank statements, and the s*ds will query that !! We're allowed to earn £5 a week each and thats it. Wouldn't I like to see MPs live like us !

Max_Headroom_3

dopester wrote: »

Too many people on this thread don't want to face reality.

At least my blunt replies are honest. If things weren't to turn around for a home-owner in the same position as Max... with a new job...take private pension early... if they aren't willing to make adjustments such as liquidate private possessions, downsizing, MEW (not that I advise it), get partner to look for work, invite family to come back and live and contribute towards bills ... well you would be taking a big risk of not digging yourself deeper in to trouble, if you can't get by on JSA.

No fairy-godmother from the state is going to boost JSA for home-owners, despite them being long-term taxpayers. I would imagine it is very hard to afford the expense of running a car on just JSA. Hope there are transport links nearby. Hope you don't become a forced seller in an increasingly challenging market for sellers to sell in. I've seen it before... ignored reality and the bank sold the house off for a steal.

Dopester, just answer me one thing please?

If, as you suggest, I MEW, how do I make the payments without a job?

JayScottGreenspan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Just out of interest what level of income do you need to have before the word 'breed' changes to 'having children ' ? ( Horrible phrase to hang on any 'element' of human society ).

Been on benefits myself a few times in the past as a single parent. We bred 2 kids happily until hubby decided that he'd rather !!!!!! off and leave the cub rearing to me.

It was always a struggle. There never seemed to be enough for anything. Living from day to day, getting parents to slip me the odd tenner for food which they knew they'd never see again, hoping there were no big purchases to make that week. Birthdays and Xmas were a nightmare.

I don't think anyone live's 'happily' on benefits. It's a crap existence. You get by using catalogues, places like Brighthouse, Provy loans and Ebay for things others take for granted. Most of the above on punitiave interest rates but with no other option really if the washing machine goes tits.

Workshy, smirkshy. A small minority. Seems everyone 'knows' a friend of a friend who's driving a nice car, off on 2 holidays a year, smokes 60 fags a day and wears the latest 'designer' gear.. all at the expense of the tax payer.

Not possible. People like that are either doing some work on the side, or involved in something seriously dodgy. There is no way anyone living PURELY on benefits, as Max is finding out, would be able to afford any of the above.

I'd guess the Nike trainers were cheap knock-offs bought for £15 from a shady Ebay trader and nothing to get too many knickers in a twist about. If not, then perhaps they were a gift from grandparents etc etc. It seems terrribly judgemental to speculate that the tax-payer is funding designer trainers without knowing the full story.

This recession will see many formerly hard working men and women struggle on for quite a while to gain employment.. and after a time they will be agahst to see themselves branded as 'workshy' after they've been out of work for a period. You can only 'get on your bike' if there are jobs there. There aren't a lot around at the moment. Oh and for those with kids, get used to being told that you should've made sure you could support them before 'breeding'.

Max, wishing you well mate.

You obviously haven't read this:

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

You're probably right. Also, unless this is dealt with, the problem is only going to get worse.

However, it's a very difficult problem, because the system has two very different types of customer:
a) the single mum who is a victim of circumstance, who takes good care of her kids, who doesn't want to need help, but does.
b) the person who intentionally gets pregnant as a passport to welfare bounty, whose kids run riot, who has no interest in raising them well. Typically chain smokes and doesn't clean up after the pitbull, leaving the kids to play amongst the mess. Will have more when the current batch get too old for benefits purposes.

How do you take care of the (a)s whilst discouraging the (b)s. I'm not sure there's a perfect answer, but a good start would be to make sure a family with one person working 40 hours a week on minimum wage has at least twice the effective net income (including housing benefit) as the equivalent workless family.

Raising the minimum wage would help, but there probably is scope for cutting benefits. £22k net, equivalent to £30k gross as per mitchaa's post, is too much reward for no work. Lower housing benefit, more sharing of rooms, lower disposable income - it's the only sane option IMO.

Maybe increased family benefits linked to both parents' NI contributions would help the (a)s too.

Look, I won't pretend decent people unwillingly in need of help don't exist, if you won't pretend the families with generations of intentionally workless don't exist. Deal?

How would you feel if you were allocated a council house next door to one of the local nightmare families? Would you be happy to ignore the problem then?

Shakethedisease

Look, I won't pretend decent people unwillingly in need of help don't exist, if you won't pretend the families with generations of intentionally workless don't exist. Deal?

How would you feel if you were allocated a council house next door to one of the local nightmare families? Would you be happy to ignore the problem then?

Deal.

I just think you've gotten the balance wrong. You're painting a picture of millions of them all sitting back and 'living the dream' on £64 a week. Council tax/LHA etc you never see when you're on benefits (not if you want to keep a roof over your head). As Max will concede, a single man renting would get exactly the same amount in his hand per week to buy food, pay for utilities, clothing etc etc. As for families with children. Well children COST.. big time in case no-one's noticed. From my own experience, it was a terrible struggle just to get by each day as a single parent on benfefits.

As for the council house next to a nightmare family. Lived in one for 5 years as a single parent. Kennels out the back and probably drug dealing going on judging by the amount of people coming and going all day,late night parties etc. THEY were the ones running about in cars and designer clothes though. Not me. I certainly wasn't 'living it up' courtesy of the tax-payer as a 'breeder' as you suggest. I had no choice so just kept my head down and got on with it.

Things do need a shake up. But not in the sense of having sections of benefits corralled off and paid at higher rates for those who were previously 'better off'. Anyone can lose their job right ? The length of time it takes to find another one is anyone's guess especially these days...3 months, 3 weeks, 3 years ? Where do you want draw the line ?

JayScottGreenspan

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Deal.

I just think you've gotten the balance wrong. You're painting a picture of millions of them all sitting back and 'living the dream' on £64 a week. Council tax/LHA etc you never see when you're on benefits (not if you want to keep a roof over your head). As Max will concede, a single man renting would get exactly the same amount in his hand per week to buy food, pay for utilities, clothing etc etc. As for families with children. Well children COST.. big time in case no-one's noticed. From my own experience, it was a terrible struggle just to get by each day as a single parent on benfefits.

As for the council house next to a nightmare family. Lived in one for 5 years as a single parent. Kennels out the back and probably drug dealing going on judging by the amount of people coming and going all day,late night parties etc. THEY were the ones running about in cars and designer clothes though. Not me. I certainly wasn't 'living it up' courtesy of the tax-payer as a 'breeder' as you suggest. I had no choice so just kept my head down and got on with it.

Things do need a shake up. But not in the sense of having sections of benefits corralled off and paid at higher rates for those who were previously 'better off'. Anyone can lose their job right ? The length of time it takes to find another one is anyone's guess especially these days...3 months, 3 weeks, 3 years ? Where do you want draw the line ?

I acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of benefits claimants are what I would call decent, honest people. At the same time, unfortunately you only need one bad family in a street to ruin it for everyone. I honestly believe the current system perpetuates this, so rather than having something of the order of magnitude of 0.1% scum fifty years ago we now have something like 0.2% scum, and growing.

As to how to help those in need whilst at the same time not encouraging the rise of urban decay - that is a genuinely difficult question. So difficult that it hasn't been satsifactorily solved. So difficult that the politer classes would rather not even think about it.

At the risk of over-simplifying and for discussion purposes only, in the language of game theory consider that there are two types of claimant: a) cooperators (who are willing to work, have some social conscience, are generally honest; 99.8% of the population), and
b) defectors (gaming the system for whatever they can, they will lie and cheat, and even have children solely to access benefits; 0.2% of the population).

There are then four broad possibilities that the system can achieve:
1) Help cooperators, don't help defectors.
2) Help cooperators, help defectors.
3) Don't help cooperators, don't help defectors.
4) Don't help cooperators, help defectors.

Clearly (1) is what we would ideally like. People who need help would be helped. The number of multi-generationally economically inactive families might start to shrink for a change.

(2) is what is typically advocated by left-leaning apologists.

(3) is what is advocated by right-wing flat-tax nut jobs.

(4) is what we currently appear to have achieved.

PasturesNew

mardatha wrote: »

I've never bought a house, but I don't see why tenants & owners should be treated differently. We're all in the same circumstances and we all need a roof over our heads. So if home owners are treated differently then that's unfair.

But they are treated differently. As a tenant, buildings insurance and all maintenance and service charges are included in your rent - and paid. As a home owner, these are extras that have to be funded.

If a renter's heating packs up this afternoon and this evening they get a leaking pipe, they call the LL and it's fixed, for free. If a homeowner has those issues they have to shut down their heating until they get a job and shut off their water until they can get a job.

dopester

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Dopester, just answer me one thing please?

If, as you suggest, I MEW, how do I make the payments without a job?

Max, maybe by max-ing out on the MEW? So thereby having enough capital to see back the repayments for the duration you're out of work.. until you get work or set-up in business yourself. I've never seen the forms so I don't know if they ask about current employment.

Anyway, in MEW you've selected the weakest of the options I've put forward - which I said didn't advise. You own a modest-terrace, so perhaps you don't see downsizing as an option. I guess that also depends on it's location. For two areas I monitor closely on Righmove, the cheapest terrace on Righmove is asking £180,000. Were it similar for you, then an option might be to move to move to another terrace but to an area where you get more for your money.

You're probably very happy where you live now, in your current home. I'm not championing a push to get you to move if you don't want to. By the sounds of it, you still have some money to tide you over, and benefits.. even if it might be tight for a while, until you land a new job.

I just wonder what someone in your position would do if they didn't find a new job within a narrow window of time, didn't have sufficient savings to fall back on.... and began to find they could not meet all the bills and expenditure they have coming in on £60ish JSA a week - for food, energy.. then running a car if they chose to keep it, telephone and broadband, house repairs ect ? Take on debt? I don't know.

Did anyone watch that TV drama this afternoon? "Moving On." How lucky was that woman to find a drug-dealer gangster to buy her house at asking price.. given how desperate she was with all the bills piling up, and other houses on the street asking less and being better. Don't think everyone gets that lucky.. although she nearly got busted with a load of his drugs.

PasturesNew

dopester wrote: »

...You own a modest-terrace, ...cheapest ... £180,000.

Or he might live here, somebody does:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-21488764.html

Or this one that's just sold:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-12080697.html

PasturesNew

dopester wrote: »

I just wonder what someone in your position would do if they didn't find a new job within a narrow window of time, didn't have sufficient savings to fall back on.... and began to find they could not meet all the bills and expenditure they have coming in on £60ish JSA a week - for food, energy.. then running a car if they chose to keep it, telephone and broadband, house repairs ect ? Take on debt? I don't know.

I can answer that ... I STR'd.

One of my major drivers to STR was not being able to find consistent work that paid me enough to cover the mortgage and the maintenance. I virtually sat inside with the lights off for 5 years trying to improve things. But every time I got a job, I was laid off again. It was a cycle I was trapped in.

With a mortgage paid off, all you'd have to do though is beat that JSA + CT somehow. It's easier to do that than to try to beat those PLUS any mortgage. However, what holds you back is thinking "I can't get ANY job right now, or a part-time job, because if I suddenly get a full-time proper job I'll have to let that first employer down". That's what stops me applying for "anything" - not wanting to muck people about and use them just for a fill in.

dopester wrote: »

Did anyone watch that TV drama this afternoon? "Moving On." How lucky was that woman to find a drug-dealer gangster to buy her house at asking price.. given how desperate she was with all the bills piling up, and other houses on the street asking less and being better. Don't think everyone gets that lucky.. although she nearly got busted with a load of his drugs.

No,

I spent my afternoon writing an article about becoming a voiceover artist ... and this morning I wrote one about keyword density. Oh the joys of plucking money out of thin air.